kura_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the action is 'permanent and cannot be undone,' which is critical for a destructive operation. This goes beyond the basic 'delete' verb to warn about irreversibility, though it doesn't cover other aspects like permissions or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it clarifies the purpose and warns about permanence. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or response behavior, leaving minor gaps for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on ID format or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a note by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kura_create, kura_get, kura_list_recent, and kura_search. It uses precise verb+resource language without being tautological.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating 'Delete a note by its ID,' which suggests this tool is for removing notes when their ID is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., vs. kura_create for creation) or provide exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.